Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Provonsha paradox
I already voted to keep this entry with a suggested rewrite, but I am just wondering if we considerd this source: http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/P/Paradox.htm.
In my opinion this particular paradox does fit nicely into the long list of others. I can't see why should it be considered vanity or even original research. Could somebody enlighten me please? ArpadGabor 17:30, Jan.2 2005
This is vanity and original research because nobody but the author ever hear of this so-called paradox. We can't just let people think up their own paradoxes, give them their own names, and submit them to wikipedia, as encyclopedias don't work that way. Articles in encyclopedias have to be about topics that are notable, famous, etc. This is not. It's just some kid who thinks he's smart. DreamGuy 23:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provonsha paradox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Provonsha paradox" page.
